' The petitioners Malik Khuda Bakhsh and others have questioned the order dated 15th January, 1975 whereby the learned District Judge, Jhang granted the temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the performance of the contract of digging earth upto specified level.
2. The land measuring 46 Kanals 11 Marlas originally belonged to Syed Jamshed Ali, who sold it to Habib Ahmad and Muhammad Bashir. On 5th October, 1970 the vendees entered into a contract with Muhammad Bakhsh for a period of 3 years for lifting earth to a specified level on payment of a specified amount. The contract was being carried out when Khalid Ahmad and others filed a suit for pre-emption which was consequently decreed under a compromise (Exh. C. 1) in which Syed Hamid Ali Shah respondent was allowed to dig earth allegedly on payment of Rs, 100 per thousand bricks. It appears that the pre-emptors resiled and filed a suit, and secured a temporary injunction against digging earth. Hamid Ali Shah respondent filed an appeal, but since the main suit was withdrawn, the appeal did not fetch any result. It happened because in the meantime the pre- emptors on 10th April, 1974 sold away their land by a registered deed to Malik Khuda Bakhsh petitioner. On an interference from the new purchaser the respondent Hamid Ali Shah felt aggrieved and filed a suit, claimed an interest in the property on account of some of the clauses of the compromise deed Exh. C. 1, and sought cancellation of the sale-deed. Alongwith the suit he moved an application for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his right to dig earth.
3. The trial Court granted a temporary injunction with regard to 26 Kanals, 11 Marlas on the condition that the respondent would pay Rs, 9,516 within a month and continue paying Rs, 800 every month before 10th of every month. The petitioners did not appeal but Hamid Ali Shah respondent felt aggrieved and questioned the order in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and extended the injunction to the entire 46 Kanals, 11 Marlas of land instead of to 26 Kanals and 11 Marlas and also increased the amount to be paid from Rs, 9,516 to Rs, 10,004. He was also of the opinion that the respondent had an arguable case and issue of a temporary injunction was not likely to cause inconvenience to the petitioners.
4. It was argued that the respondent did not possess an arguable case because he had no locus fandi to challenge the sale made in favour of the petitioner and could not insist on the specific performance of the contract which was prima facie for a period of 3 years, and that period had by now expirid I need not go into the maintainability of the suit at this stage, but it is however not disputed that Khaliq Ahmad aid others the pre-emptors who were formerly the owners of the property had entered into an arrangement with the respondent and allowed him to remove the earth at the rate of Rs, 100 for one thousand bricks. The said arrangement was said to be incorporated in Exh. C.
1. It was however, objected to that the said arrangement had not binding effect on the parties' particularly on the petitioner who was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the agreement, because the respondent was required to execute a fresh document to assure implementation of the terms and conditions recited in Exh. C. I. What effect the compromise agreement Exh. C. 1 would have on the rights of the parties, and how much they were liable to each other would again be for the trial Court to determine at the trial. It is however, sufficient to point out that the trial Court granted an injunction against the petitioner but he did not appeal, meaning thereby that he did not feel aggrieved by the terms on which the injunction was granted. Temporary injunction is in the discretion of the Courts below and the same has been exercised by them against the petitioner. It has been laid down in Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood (1) that this Court exercises limited jurisdiction in revision under section 115, C. P. C. Which is meant primarily for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction and not those which are made in their discretion, unless the discretion is found to have been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily. No such arbitrary exercise has been pointed out. It is thus difficult to interfere with the discretion of the learned counsel Courts below. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1970 SC 139 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' For the reasons aforementioned, there is no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.